RAMILA vs THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF VELLORE DISTRICT — 39/2020
Case under Code of Civil Procedure Section 27(c). Status: Trial. Next hearing: 03rd June 2026.
OS - Original Suit
CNR: TNVL230000682020
Next Hearing
03rd June 2026
Filing Number
97/2020
Filing Date
05-08-2020
Registration No
39/2020
Registration Date
07-08-2020
Court
District Munsif Court, Katpadi
Judge
1-District Munsif,Katpadi
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
RAMILA
Adv. GUNASEKARAN S
Respondent(s)
THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR OF VELLORE DISTRICT
THE REVENUE DIVISIONAL OFFICER
THE THASILDHAR
THE VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER
Hearing History
Judge: 1-District Munsif,Katpadi
Trial
Trial
Trial
Issues
Written Statement
| Date | Purpose |
|---|---|
| 06-04-2026 | Trial |
| 13-03-2026 | Trial |
| 27-01-2026 | Trial |
| 15-12-2025 | Issues |
| 02-12-2025 | Written Statement |
Interim Orders
Case Summary: O.S. No. 39/2020 Outcome: Petition ALLOWED. P. Saritha was impleaded as the 5th defendant in the suit. Key Facts: Ramila filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction to compel revenue officials to issue a Patta (land ownership document) for property in Survey No. 544/5, Ponnai Village. P. Saritha sought to intervene, claiming she held the Patta in her own name based on a 2012 sale deed from Vimala. The court found that Saritha's rights would be directly affected by any judgment favoring Ramila, making her a necessary and proper party to the suit despite Ramila's objection that this was merely a mandatory injunction suit against government officials. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Case Summary: O.S. No. 39/2020 Outcome: Petition ALLOWED. P. Saritha was impleaded as the 5th defendant in the suit. Key Facts: Ramila filed a suit seeking mandatory injunction to compel revenue officials to issue a Patta (land ownership document) for property in Survey No. 544/5, Ponnai Village. P. Saritha sought to intervene, claiming she held the Patta in her own name based on a 2012 sale deed from Vimala. The court found that Saritha's rights would be directly affected by any judgment favoring Ramila, making her a necessary and proper party to the suit despite Ramila's objection that this was merely a mandatory injunction suit against government officials. This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Browse Related Cases
Cases under same legislation
Explore other courts